FA doing their best to help us with squad rotation
Clearly they have seen Klopp runs players to the ground so have decided to step in and help out
Match Day Thread LFC v Union SG
- Thread starter saintanton
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Clearly they have seen Klopp runs players to the ground so have decided to step in and help out
I thought posting "Assume will start this one then" in the match thread for the Union game was fairly clear tbh
No, because he said "...appeal rejected so will serve 3 match ban.
Assume will start this one then"
That can read as "it will start", meaning the ban, because that is the subject of the sentence immediately before and it's common to associate the two without anything to suggest otherwise.
I had to read it more than once, and the only reason I understood was because I'm aware Bisc would know that the ban would only apply to domestic games.
He wasn't incorrect, just unclear. And in a week when miscommunication has caused such an issue...
I understood it
But the subsequent discussion has hurt my brain
I am off for a lie down
- May 22, 2011
- 73,301
- 25,365
- 113
Nice that I give you guys something to talk about when I’m not around.
Not sure if should be worried that Z was on my wavelength or not
Not sure if should be worried that Z was on my wavelength or not
You should probably have yourself evaluated just to be safe.
The sentence would still have required a "with", i.e. "Assume will start with this one then." And isn't the subject of the previous sentence Jones and not his ban?
Anyway, I thought Bisc was clear.
Blimey, all I did was point out to Solid that he'd misunderstood and explained why I thought that misunderstanding might have occurred.
I don't want to get into a protracted discussion over this, I'm just answering the question put to me then hopefully let it go.
Although I try to write as well as I can I'm no expert. With my limited grammatical knowledge I would say that the sentence can be split into two, and the appeal is the subject of the first clause - Jones is the subject of the second clause but there is no personal pronoun to make that clear.
"Jones red card appeal rejected/ so [he] will serve 3 match ban"
I agree that the second sentence would require a "with" to make it about the ban:
" assume [it] will start [with] this one then"
The principle I go on is that if you leave words out you're expecting the reader to fill them in, and if they're not on the same wavelength as you then misunderstandings can occur.
And one did.
Like I said earlier, there's no clear right and wrong here, just a bit of ambiguity.
Speaking of miscommunication - remember you questioned the use of the word "off" in the transcript?
That word has now mysteriously disappeared from here:
https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/liverpool-var-audio-offside-diaz-31097359
and here:
https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...transcript-luis-diaz-goal-liverpool-tottenham
Though it can still be heard in the audio.
Odd.
So, I've just checked the BBC site and it's still on there.
I'm not sure what to make of that.
See your point but it was a new paragraph so unassociated to the previous statement / comment